When it comes to Geographical Indications or GIs, the European Union has been stunningly successful in its efforts - primarily through trade agreements - to gain broader recognition for their relative new, sui generis system for protecting them.  The United States on the other hand is playing defense, and it is not easy.  Whether your game is tennis or football (American or other), the advantage is always with the offense.  In some respects, the situation regarding the Lisbon Agreement is a bit fuzzy.  Still, the fact that a United States has to make this kind of request - "Let us in the room" - speaks volumes, especially as there is no assurance that the response will be positive.

George York is the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative in USTR's Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation.  On March 18, Mr. York was the first presenter at GBD's public event on GI's, What's in a Name: Geographical Indications, Trade Agreement, and Product Names in Global Commerce. 

He defined GIs.  "Basically, a GI is a name of a product, protected by intellectual property rights, that associates a certain characteristic or quality with a geographic place."

He had some fun. "Would I get to see the secret formula for Coke?" he quipped, in talking about his expectations for his current position.  Well, no. "But, you know," he said, "it turns out that GIs [are] every bit as exciting, every bit as sensitive, and every bit as complex of an issue [as] anything else we deal with in the [IPR] space."

He talked about the protection of GIs in the United States. "We in the United States protect GIs," he said.  "We protect GIs through our trademark system."  Later he noted that "Parmiggianno-Reggiano has something like 18 trademarks in the U.S."

He talked about some U.S. objectives.  "We're trying to get our feta into the European market. We're trying to get our parmesan into the European Market," he said.

He talked about the tensions, the fact that there are strong passions about GIs, both in Europe and the U.S.,with disagreements that are hard to bridge.

He talked about the search for common ground.  Obviously, if there is to be a successful Transatlantic Trade and Investment or T-TIP agreement, the differences over GIs will have to be worked out.  That, at any rate seems to be the view of both the U.S. and EU negotiators.   Mr. York's more immediate concern, however, was next month's Diplomatic Conference at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva.  That has the goal of expanding the scope of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin.  The expectation is that the conference will enlarge the scope of the agreement by including Geographical Indications as well as other appellations of origin.  

As we understand it, the problem for the U.S. is that such an expansion could jeopardize U.S. exports of common name products like parmesan in markets where they are currently accepted.  Congress has weighed in quite heavily on this issue.  Eight key Congressional leaders wrote to the Director-General of WIPO, Francis Gurry, in February, and we highlighted the issue and their letter in the TTALK Quote for March 12.

The issue is a little fuzzy because, although the United States is a member of WIPO, it is a not a member of the Lisbon Agreement.  So, the obvious question is, Does the U.S. have a right to demand a seat at the table?  Mr. York addressed that question twice, first in his opening remarks and then in the Q&A.  Here are excerpts from each.

From George York's Opening Remarks:

From Mr. York's response to a question:

The questioner asked what the U.S. objective was with respect to the upcoming Lisbon Agreement negotiations in the World Intellectual Property Organization.  In responding, Mr. York said:

GIs may seem like small potatoes against the backdrop of the giant slices of the global economy that are being negotiated in TTIP and TPP.   Our view is that they are a big issue, one whose importance is likely to grow over time.  Companies care about trademarks, and the issue of language is even more fundamental.  For that reason and others, there are bound to be several more entries on this topic.  After all, we have barely scratched the surface of GBD's own relatively short program, let alone the larger topic.

With more to come, we have no new comment for this space, but it is worth reinforcing the initial point.  It is hard to win on defense.  America needs Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, and then the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, TPP, so that the world will see that the U.S. is indeed a serious player in the vital game of trade agreements.  And in TPP the U.S. will need some strong language on GIs if it has any hope of defending its interests in other forums.